He then states, that, the reason why he now writes this “Defence” is, because Palmer, by broad inuendos, has charged him with immoral and scandalous practices while he lived among the Dissenters.
Wesley’s pamphlet chiefly consists of three parts:—1. The reasons which induced him to write the letter which Clavel had published, and which had “lost him the good graces of his old friends.” 2. A consideration of Palmer’s defence of his party. 3. A refutation of the scandalous charges brought against himself. The pamphlet is written with great smartness.
In 1705, Palmer published an answer to Wesley’s second pamphlet, entitled, “A Vindication of the Learning, Loyalty, Morals, and most Christian Behaviour of the Dissenters towards the Church of England; in answer to Mr Wesley’s Defence of his Letter concerning the Dissenters’ Education in their Private Academies; and to Mr Sacheverell’s injurious Reflections upon them. By Samuel Palmer: London, 1705.”
Palmer, in his preface, states that in his former pamphlet he had charged Wesley with giving a perverse and invidious turn to some of the Dissenters’ innocent actions; with an ungenerous betrayal of private confidence, by reflecting upon private conversations; with insulting the works of great and excellent scholars; and with base ingratitude to his Dissenting friends. He also speaks most contemptuously of Wesley’s reply to his previous production, and says he did not think Wesley was “capable of writing so rash, impertinent, and virulent a piece.”
Palmer’s vindication, which consists of 115 closely—printed quarto pages, is written with great ability, and is divided into nine chapters. The first is intended to prove that the Dissenters have a right to have private academies. The second shows that such academies are no injury to the prerogatives of Queen Anne, and that their tutors are not guilty of perjury. The third vindicates the ability of such tutors, and assigns reasons why the Dissenters have published so few learned works. The fourth gives the reasons why the Dissenters did not write more against Popery during the reign of James II. The fifth asserts that the principles and behaviour of the Dissenters are loyal. The sixth defends the addresses which the Dissenters presented to James II. The seventh justifies the personal and public behaviour of Dissenters towards the Church of England. The eighth vindicates the moral principles and conversation of Dissenters. And the ninth shows the value which Dissenters place upon external worship, upon the sacraments, and upon ordination.
Two years after this, Mr Wesley wrote a long and elaborate reply to this second pamphlet of Mr Palmer’s; but, for the present, we must pause in our narrative to glance at other matters now transpiring. It was a period of intense excitement, and the dissenting controversy was the great question of the day.
A few weeks after the accession of Queen Anne, the famous Henry Sacheverell began the war by preaching his furious sermon, at Oxford, on “political union;” in which, says Defoe, “he dooms all Dissenters to destruction, without either bell, book, or candle.”[[167]] In this celebrated sermon, Sacheverell lays it down as a principle, that “religion and government, Church and State, make up one entire compounded constitution, sharing the same fate and circumstances, twisted and interwoven into the very being and principles of each other, both alike jointly assisting and being assisted; and, like the philosopher’s twins, they communicate to each other their mirth or sorrow, and equally suffer or rejoice. A ruined Church and prosperous Government are irreconcilable contradictions in experience, confronted and confuted by the universal testimony of all ages and histories, sacred and profane.”[[168]] Having attempted to illustrate and to establish this principle, he then makes his doctrine to bear upon English Dissenters, and uses language the most violent. The following are specimens:—
The Dissenters are “a confused swarm of sectarists gathered about the body of the Church of England, not to partake of its communion, but to disturb its peace,” (p. 20.)
Men like Tillotson, who were in favour of the scheme for comprehending the Dissenters within the pale of the Established Church, are designated “false and perfidious members, who, under the hypocritical disguise of charity and moderation, would have taken down the fence of the Church of England, and removed its landmark, to make way for men to enter, who would have debauched its doctrines, overrun its discipline, and subverted its constitution. These shuffling, treacherous latitudinarians ought to be stigmatised, and treated equally as dangerous enemies to government, as well as Church,” (p. 20.)
Again: “Presbytery and Republicanism go hand in hand. They are but the same disorderly, levelling principles, in the two different branches of our state, equally implacable enemies to monarchy and Episcopacy. They were the same hand that were guilty both of regicide and sacrilege, that divided the king’s head and crown, and that made our churches stables and dens of beasts, as well as thieves,” (p. 20.)